Meredith Kercher murdered - Amanda Knox convicted, now appeals #5

[otto]

Worth noting too he did not LIE, imagine or make up stories to explain it, whether they 'thought' he was lying or not. He was in jail for two weeks too, not just a few hours. Big difference IMO.

Quite true. An eye witness placed Patrick at the scene of the crime murdering Meredith. I'm sure that there was some pressure on him to answer questions truthfully ... and it wouldn't surprise me if initially, no matter what he said, police believed Amanda over Patrick. He survived 2 weeks of being questioned as a violent sex murderer ... but he didn't lie. He didn't falsely accuse anyone. Amanda, a well educated, intelligent woman, either had so much to hide that she preferred to deflect attention onto Patrick, or she is the most mentally feeble of well educated, intelligent woman. I have a hard time believing that Amanda is mentally feeble ... not after pulling off the free apartment in Berlin for two weeks.

 

[Allusonz]

Respetfully Respectfully snipped

"Raffaele's sentence was reduced because he opted for a fast track trial, not because he lied"



Please no one take this out of context that is NOT my intent

I just wanted to point out that it was actually RG that opted for a fast track trial not RS

The reason i know this is something i would do is cuz i do. I did not sleep well the previous night as i knew i had a very long day ahead at the office. Even though i make sure i stay hydrated and eat properly, after a sleepless night and a long day of negotiations i make mistakes. Not intentionally nor to misrepresent.

If i was under suspicon for murder the police may lable this as a lie. I know though that i did not lie. I know what i meant to say it just came out wrong. My mind is still swirling from the intense negotiations of the day and i made an honest mistake

I can though understand why people may assume i would be lying. The question is how do i prove i was not? The evidence is there and i wrote it. Thus it must be fact.

Right? or Wrong?

It though is not fact, it is the result of someones brain not functioning fully and tired

Therefore i must rely on other evidence to prove my innocence.

I am human and i admit it

 

[otto]

Resptfully Respectfully snipped

"Raffaele's sentence was reduced because he opted for a fast track trial, not because he lied"



Please no one take this out of context that is NOT my intent

I just wanted to point out that it was actually RG that opted for a fast track trial not RS

The reason i know this is something i would do is cuz i do. I did not sleep well the previous night as i knew i had a very long day ahead at the office. Even though i make sure i stay hydrated and eat properly, after a sleepless night and a long day of negotiations i make mistakes. Not intentionally nor to misrepresent.

If i was under suspicon for murder the police may lable this as a lie. I know though that i did not lie. I know what i meant to say it just came out wrong. My mind is still swirling from the intense negotiations of the day and i made an honest mistake

I can though understand why people may assume i would be lying. The question is how do i prove i was not? The evidence is there and i wrote it. Thus it must be fact.

Right? or Wrong?

It though is not fact, it is the result of someones brain not functioning fully and tired

Therefore i must rely on other evidence to prove my innocence.

I am human and i admit it

Thanks for correcting that for me.

 

[Nova]

They ate fish and salad, and while he was washing the dishes, the pipe broke. When Raffaele spoke to his father, he mentioned dinner and the pipe. His father was able to specify the time was 8:42 ... a complete contradiction with Amanda's claims.

That information is straight from the motivation report, which references various witness sworn statements. If you want access to witness statements that were introduced in court, you'll probably have to travel to Perugia and translate the documents .. or check news reports from November 2007.

I believe this is why Malkmus is asking about the trial testimony. I know it is why I am asking. The motivation report is not very specific in this regard; it merely states its conclusion that dinner was finished by 8:40 and attributes the fact to RS's father WITHOUT reporting what the father said.

Was it the father's testimony that RS said, "Oh, hi, Dad! Amanda came over and we made a salad and cooked a fish. Then we ate them. Oh, yeah, there was pasta, too. As soon as we finished eating, I jumped up to do the dishes and while doing them, a pipe broke."? (Not that this sounds like any boy I know, but maybe Italian sons have such convos with their dads.)

Or was it that the RS said Amanda came over for dinner and there was a leaky pipe and the father ASSUMED the pipe leaked after the dinner was consumed and the dinner dishes were being washed? If so, maybe RS was washing the breakfast dishes so he'd have something on which to serve dinner later.

How can anyone know without access to the father's exact testimony?

 

[Nova]

Quite true. An eye witness placed Patrick at the scene of the crime murdering Meredith. I'm sure that there was some pressure on him to answer questions truthfully ... and it wouldn't surprise me if initially, no matter what he said, police believed Amanda over Patrick. He survived 2 weeks of being questioned as a violent sex murderer ... but he didn't lie. He didn't falsely accuse anyone. Amanda, a well educated, intelligent woman, either had so much to hide that she preferred to deflect attention onto Patrick, or she is the most mentally feeble of well educated, intelligent woman. I have a hard time believing that Amanda is mentally feeble ... not after pulling off the free apartment in Berlin for two weeks.

<modsnip> But IIRC she was 20 years old. Not yet old enough to drink legally in the U.S.

And she was in a foreign country trying to function in a language she was still learning.

<modsnip> we have no way of knowing whether PL ever lied or not in response to interrogation. He was eventually exonerated because he had an alibi, not because he won a medal for truthfulness.

Please note: I also have no evidence that he DID lie, and I don't mean to slander the man. But somehow internet lore has turned him into George Washington with a cherry tree.

 

[otto]

I believe this is why Malkmus is asking about the trial testimony. I know it is why I am asking. The motivation report is not very specific in this regard; it merely states its conclusion that dinner was finished by 8:40 and attributes the fact to RS's father WITHOUT reporting what the father said.

Was it the father's testimony that RS said, "Oh, hi, Dad! Amanda came over and we made a salad and cooked a fish. Then we ate them. Oh, yeah, there was pasta, too. As soon as we finished eating, I jumped up to do the dishes and while doing them, a pipe broke."? (Not that this sounds like any boy I know, but maybe Italian sons have such convos with their dads.)

Or was it that the RS said Amanda came over for dinner and there was a leaky pipe and the father ASSUMED the pipe leaked after the dinner was consumed and the dinner dishes were being washed? If so, maybe RS was washing the breakfast dishes so he'd have something on which to serve dinner later.

How can anyone know without access to the father's exact testimony?

<modsnip> access to specific witness testimony for Raffaele's father ... access to Italian language documents that may or may not be available to the public in Perugia; documents that are stored somewhere in those boxes and boxes of documents related to the case. I don't think anyone will have an easy time of obtaining that information at this time.

The information was reported during trial, and has been summarized in the Motivation Report. Discussion yesterday implied that media reports could not be trusted, now the Judge's words should not be trusted ... I don't know what to suggest. There are a few references to the father's testimony in the Motivation Report. <modsnip>

Raffaele's father testified that he spoke to Raffaele after they ate dinner at 8:42. Amanda has placed the time of dinner at 9:30, 10:00 and 11:00. <modsnip> believe that Amanda ate dinner three times, in spite of a water covered floor and broken sink drain at 8:42, but not at the time when Raffaele told his father they ate dinner, so be it. Amanda's three or four dinners certainly account for the time that Meredith was murdered - which is her objective.

 

[SleuthyGal]

Yes, I haven't read about anyone being a psychic and having access to the innermost thoughts of any of the case insiders (witnesses and suspects alike), yet much is attributed to the case insiders, what they (allegedly) said, how they felt, what they thought, why they acted the way they did...most of it without benefit of any corroborating source, transcript, or ummm...working crystal ball, I guess.

Imaginations are wonderful things, but using them to analyze a criminal case, not as much. If one sticks only the the known/verifiable facts, one can look at the case the way an independent/objective investigator would, assuming said investigator didn't take any sides and looked at the evidence with a critical eye.

I suspect that's an elusive exercise, since the easiest thing is to read some articles, listen to some talking heads, pay attention to the salacious stuff, make lots and lots of assumptions, and refuse to consider or acknowledge what is and isn't known or proven.

 

[Nova]

It sounds like you want access to specific witness testimony for Raffaele's father ... access to Italian language documents that may or may not be available to the public in Perugia; documents that are stored somewhere in those boxes and boxes of documents related to the case. I don't think anyone will have an easy time of obtaining that information at this time.

The information was reported during trial, and has been summarized in the Motivation Report. Discussion yesterday implied that media reports could not be trusted, now the Judge's words should not be trusted ... I don't know what to suggest. There are a few references to the father's testimony in the Motivation Report. If you don't want to believe the Judge's words, then don't believe them.

Raffaele's father testified that he spoke to Raffaele after they ate dinner at 8:42. Amanda has placed the time of dinner at 9:30, 10:00 and 11:00. If you prefer to believe that Amanda ate dinner three times, in spite of a water covered floor and broken sink drain at 8:42, but not at the time when Raffaele told his father they ate dinner, so be it. Amanda's three or four dinners certainly account for the time that Meredith was murdered - which is her objective.

Nothing about this is "summarized" in the Motivation Report. That is the problem. The judge merely states his conclusion and attributes his conclusion to the father's testimony (without actually citing that testimony). What I'm trying to discern is how the judge reached his conclusion. I didn't say the judge was lying or that I don't believe him. I am saying I can think of a number of things the father might have said that would lead the judge to a wrong conclusion.
<modsnip>

"read the transcripts." Are only parts available in English? Is everything available on-line in Italian? I honest don't know.

 

[Allusonz]

<modsnip>

One thing with this has always perplexed me as it truly is forensics 101

Why was MK's body temperature not taken right away instead of 11 hours later? Due to this error, as well as many others, can we honestly state that he has an alibi?

 

[miley]

Hey Sleuthy,
I'm not sure if you were around during the Ron Hendry discussion... of all theories, his wins hands down.

Here is a quote from Hendry (last part sounds like you):

"Typically, with major accidents, the police have little time to spend on a job before having to move on," Hendry explains. "I come behind them and usually spend a great deal more time. In cases that occurred months or years before I was brought in, the most relevant evidence is a set of photos of the accident scene. My technique is to study these photos intensely and then acquire enough information to do a scale layout. My approach is to analyze and interpret the physical evidence and review how it corresponds with witness accounts. I never start with witness accounts in any analysis."​

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/december042010/amanda-know.php

 

[SleuthyGal]

Thanks Miley! No I was not aware of Ron Hendry or those discussions, but thank you for posting his statement. I concur with his approach.

I can't take someone's word for what someone else said someone else said again, without being able to look at corroborating statements, reading a transcript, or listening to audio. The reason? Most people misremember what was said exactly (yes, even me) and they give an interpretation of what they think they heard.

Not good enough.

I realize some feel it's good enough as a statement of fact, but I've seen enough mistakes when people think they're being accurate in relating what someone else said, to know.... yeah, not so much accurate as sort of maybe similar. And it's not that people are trying to lie, it's that humans make mistakes and exact communication can only be guaranteed when you have an unimpeachable source (like a word for word transcript or audio).

You get one word wrong and you can change the meaning of something. You take a sentence out of context and you can alter the meaning as well. We've seen it with our own eyes. We see people assuming things that were said who have no idea what was really said and they can't possibly know. But assuming is a favorite pastime, regardless of how erroneous it is.

In my own life when I need to make sure I'm accurate (like at work), I take copious notes. I'll even audio record technical meetings so I can transcribe the notes later and ensure they are completely accurate.

 

[otto]

Nothing about this is "summarized" in the Motivation Report. That is the problem. The judge merely states his conclusion and attributes his conclusion to the father's testimony (without actually citing that testimony). What I'm trying to discern is how the judge reached his conclusion. I didn't say the judge was lying or that I don't believe him. I am saying I can think of a number of things the father might have said that would lead the judge to a wrong conclusion.

You like to make definitive statements such as that "Amanda lied about the time she ate dinner" when in fact we don't know how anyone actually pinpointed the dinner time.

But if it is your contention that we are to take the judge's word without questioning how he reached his conclusions, I don't know why the Motivation Report was issued in the first place and I certainly don't know why we are discussing the case.

You have often sent people to "read the transcripts." Are only parts available in English? Is everything available on-line in Italian? I honest don't know.

It is in the motivation report. I posted a few of the page references yesterday. You can also open the Motivation Report, type "fish" into the search, and find where Raffaele's father talked about the movie he watched and the dinner of fish and salad. Even the movie is mentioned by title in the report.

I will respect that the Motivation Report is a summary of the reasoning for the judgement and that points referenced in the document are correct. The motivation report is a mandatory document that is produced after all trial verdicts in Italy. You don't have to believe it, and you don't have to believe what you read in the media, and you are certainly welcome to come to your own conclusions in whatever way you deem fit. Personally, I rely on court documents for information.

Amanda's trial testimony has been made available on the internet in both video and transcript format. It is her words that interest us ... as it preempts any need to rely on media interpretation or analysis of what she truly said in the courtroom.

 

[Salem]

HEADS UP! From here on any post with the word YOU in it will be removed. Everyone is now put on notice that all posts must be written based on YOUR own analysis - NOT on what the other guy says.

So..... reivew your post and find a way to word it without using "you" or your post will be zapped.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[otto]

Here is a portion of what Raffaele and his father discussed at 8:42

"Even on the evening of November 1, when Francesco Sollecito called his son (it was at 20:42 pm, to tell him the plot of the movie he had just seen, &#8218;The Pursuit of Happiness&#8219, Raffaele was with Amanda and told his father that the next day he would also be with Amanda: they had in fact planned a trip to Gubbio. He recalled as well that it was on the evening of November 1, when he phoned his son at 20:42 pm, that Raffaele had told him that "while he was washing the dishes he had noticed leaked water<that had spilled onto the floor&#8219;, and that he had specified that he was with Amanda (p. 45, statement by Francesco Sollecito)."

Ref: pg 63 Motivation Report

Note: this was on page 45 of the statement from Raffaele's father. This statement was not a brief remark that filled a paragraph, but a thorough witness statement that filled more than 45 pages.

 

[SleuthyGal]

AK said she didn't know exactly what time they ate dinner. She gave an estimate of 11pm and said it wasn't exact. If she had said, "I just don't know" people would be rolling their eyes at that. If she gave a definitive time and insisted it couldn't possibly be at any other time, she'd be called a liar. There simply is nothing AK could say that someone wouldn't call her statement a lie.

So...they ate sometime between 8:30pm and maybe as late as 9:30 or 10pm? Maybe they ate again or maybe not. Doesn't matter. There are no witnesses to their dinner. That one phone call doesn't really prove it...not entirely because we don't know what they did (or ate) later.

It kind of doesn't matter what time they ate or said they ate dinner. I don't see why this is THAT important. It's not the only piece of the timeline.

What it does show is that what was on RS's mind around 8:30pm - 9pm during that phone call is dinner and a spill. The spill is now verified as having happened and it's BEFORE any murder. Thus the need for cleaning up the spill or pipe leak has been established (and not invented after the murder). So we know there was a need for cleaning the floor. That part sounds pretty innocent to me!

I still don't see how we go from dinner/cleanup at RS's to murder at MK's. In a span of what, maybe an hour or two? With no plans to hook up with RG, AK thinking she might have to work that night (then finding out she didn't).... to murder?

 

[Nova]

AK said she didn't know exactly what time they ate dinner. She gave an estimate of 11pm and said it wasn't exact. If she had said, "I just don't know" people would be rolling their eyes at that. If she gave a definitive time and insisted it couldn't possibly be at any other time, she'd be called a liar. There simply is nothing AK could say that someone wouldn't call her statement a lie.

So...they ate sometime between 8:30pm and maybe as late as 9:30 or 10pm? Maybe they ate again or maybe not. Doesn't matter. There are no witnesses to their dinner. That one phone call doesn't really prove it...not entirely because we don't know what they did (or ate) later.

It kind of doesn't matter what time they ate or said they ate dinner. I don't see why this is THAT important. It's not the only piece of the timeline.

What it does show is that what was on RS's mind around 8:30pm - 9pm during that phone call is dinner and a spill. The spill is now verified as having happened and it's BEFORE any murder. Thus the need for cleaning up the spill or pipe leak has been established (and not invented after the murder). So we know there was a need for cleaning the floor. That part sounds pretty innocent to me!

I still don't see how we go from dinner/cleanup at RS's to murder at MK's. In a span of what, maybe an hour or two? With no plans to hook up with RG, AK thinking she might have to work that night (then finding out she didn't).... to murder?

I've read speculations that have AK and RS hanging out at the Bball courts by 11, where they presumably ran into RG. I think that's why it's important to some that the dinner be pushed up a few hours.

<modsnip>

 

[SleuthyGal]

speculations that have AK and RS hanging out at the Bball courts by 11, where they presumably ran into RG.

Well yes, I imagine there are all kinds of speculations. Did RG ever say that RS and AK met him there? Did he say anything?

I'm trying to imagine a conversation where they see each other and say, "Hey I know...let's go to MK's apt and have an orgy or something. You gotta knife? Cool!"

 

[dgfred]

Here is a portion of what Raffaele and his father discussed at 8:42

"Even on the evening of November 1, when Francesco Sollecito called his son (it was at 20:42 pm, to tell him the plot of the movie he had just seen, &#8218;The Pursuit of Happiness&#8219, Raffaele was with Amanda and told his father that the next day he would also be with Amanda: they had in fact planned a trip to Gubbio. He recalled as well that it was on the evening of November 1, when he phoned his son at 20:42 pm, that Raffaele had told him that "while he was washing the dishes he had noticed leaked water<that had spilled onto the floor&#8219;, and that he had specified that he was with Amanda (p. 45, statement by Francesco Sollecito)."

Ref: pg 63 Motivation Report

Note: this was on page 45 of the statement from Raffaele's father. This statement was not a brief remark that filled a paragraph, but a thorough witness statement that filled more than 45 pages.

Thanks for this! There is no excuse or explanation for lying about eating as late as 11pm... if one is actually seeking the truth. Plain as day IMO, <modsnip>.

 

[miley]

Here is a portion of what Raffaele and his father discussed at 8:42

"Even on the evening of November 1, when Francesco Sollecito called his son (it was at 20:42 pm, to tell him the plot of the movie he had just seen, ‚The Pursuit of Happiness&#8219, Raffaele was with Amanda and told his father that the next day he would also be with Amanda: they had in fact planned a trip to Gubbio. He recalled as well that it was on the evening of November 1, when he phoned his son at 20:42 pm, that Raffaele had told him that "while he was washing the dishes he had noticed leaked water<that had spilled onto the floor&#8219;, and that he had specified that he was with Amanda (p. 45, statement by Francesco Sollecito)."

Ref: pg 63 Motivation Report

Note: this was on page 45 of the statement from Raffaele's father. This statement was not a brief remark that filled a paragraph, but a thorough witness statement that filled more than 45 pages.

Of the ten (zillion) phone calls Raffaele's father made to him that evening - the only thing I clearly see is no wonder Raffaele turned his phone off

 

[SleuthyGal]

There is no excuse or explanation for lying about eating as late as 11pm

What time did RS say he (and AK) ate dinner?

Who was on the phone with RS's dad? (hint: it wasn't AK).

AK didn't pay attention to the time they ate dinner. Maybe she lied. Maybe she didn't lie. We don't know for sure; we only know she didn't have or give the exact time. If they didn't both say "11pm" then we know one thing: they didn't compare stories on this to try and match it up for when they were asked.